Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 07 April 2021 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDBE3A2EF6; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwwCdxs-h6kz; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B263E3A2EF5; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.129] (unknown [186.19.8.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B057C280210; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 23:49:22 +0000 (UTC)
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops.all@ietf.org>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>
References: <161366727749.10107.14514005068158901089@ietfa.amsl.com> <e41f3484-f816-e185-2d99-94323c8da732@si6networks.com> <CALx6S34qSxGijVcs229bAL5gMhMvMNYUXm3yEmrg6wxUiUAiaA@mail.gmail.com> <bf83d228-25bc-21bb-f984-d58ead6bf492@si6networks.com> <CALx6S35Kh-QAXJDAucuw5Wty37MBiwS=pqQknMZ+15b7D5Sn8A@mail.gmail.com> <34e78618-cb28-71a1-a9d3-7aec38032659@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2zqD9_d2Fbr25Y2CV1GdzYKd167yf5DHeHna7V66pF65A@mail.gmail.com> <0bd316ac-1789-f4c6-d280-943ad6e60309@si6networks.com> <CALx6S34dMEEJ+OPUu_=FW1Y5AQuvAaHzBPEe448S7rfbMmHN_w@mail.gmail.com> <CEFDF511-9255-4913-840D-50CCBC2B7B17@gmail.com> <CALx6S36_w+zxyUt0DzQ9NKBs+SAPZDNhs_sqLBwi+qneOPSS5A@mail.gmail.com> <ef2bd4f5-3b1e-b88c-ec8f-dd9a2f9a60ba@si6networks.com> <CALx6S349X7fQR=9Dj+n5X7ovXsSjLYibv-C-+bL0nkWsYP5NGA@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR11MB43668EDA6209CA6AF3BCC5EEB5759@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <36fd46e6-7221-1819-0ae5-0a655d8dbcbe@foobar.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <8594d4a8-72f6-252c-3c29-8e1d91d34a8c@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:49:19 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <36fd46e6-7221-1819-0ae5-0a655d8dbcbe@foobar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/oWoEZ4iTdJGY5v3ZpWiv8DO2oLs>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [v6ops] [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops-05
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 23:49:45 -0000

Hi,

On 7/4/21 11:58, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote on 07/04/2021 15:22:
>> I guess that the authors could consider adding a sentence that it
>> also doesn't provide any recommendation on how end hosts make use of
>> extension headers, but that might be a bit incongruous in the sense
>> that the document doesn't appear to talk about end host behaviour at
>> all ...
> well, this is kinda the concern that we as authors have.  The document 
> is completely clear that it's descriptive, and not prescriptive, and 
> there is an entire disclaimer section which points this out.  We get 
> Tom's interest in having a document that tells forwarding stack software 
> authors what to aim towards, but this isn't that document and we've got 
> well-defined reasons for not wanting to move in that direction.
> 
> If Tom or others find that the idea of a descriptive-only document 
> doesn't match what they would want, well ok, I guess that's 
> understandable from the point of view of a software author - but 
> consensus isn't unanimity either.  As you suggest, adding an extra 
> sentence as a further disclaimer seems incongruous and I'm not sure that 
> it would turn the document into a better version of itself.

Tom seems to be willing to have a document that proposes a path forward 
to improve usage of EHs. As noted in the very disclaimer, this is not 
that document. That's subject to a different document that interested 
parties should submit.

So, in my opinon, this document is ready tp ship to the IESG.

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492